Re: [Xen-users] How many guest hosts per physical host

[Florian Gleixner <flo@xxxxxxxxx>]

Grant McWilliams wrote:
>     >
>     Incidentally, I use Virtuozzo for Windows 2003 virtualization.  I
>     get absolutely AMAZING density on it, way better than I could get
>     with Xen.  It's also expensive, and there's very little user
>     community if you have problems.
> 
>     Best Regards,
>     Nathan Eisenberg
> 
> 
> Using the name Virtuozzo and Virtualization in the same sentence is
> being a bit optimistic. As far as density - on mysqlbench I'm losing
> less than 1% to the exact same server running it native. In order to get
> more density than that I think you'd have to be doing something amazing
> unless your "virtualized" servers are faster than the real one. So how
> well does that live migration between Windows servers work with Virtuozzo?
> 

I think density here is the number of virtual machines per physical
machine by given cpu/ram/disk resources. You can share cpu and probably
disk with xen, but you can hardly share ram. If you use OS
virtualisation (virtuozzo, lxc, solaris containers) every VM can use the
whole ram - you can limit the VMs if you like. OS virtualisation hat
many limitations and problems but you can run a incredible number of
machines on a machine.

Live migration is possible with some products but i have no idea how
good it is. OS virtualisations has other applications than hypervisor
based techniques.


> As far as the cost, I have 190 Xen servers and I've never paid a dime.
> As far as the community I'd think that 80 messages a day on the Xen
> lists would be considered more than very little.
> 

I personally think that lxc containers will get a boost soon. The really
nice is: you can combine and run lxc containers within a xen or kvm VM -
 theoretically.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users